STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH versus M/S. DAMINI CONSTRUCTION

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 416 · Decided: 28-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
..... 
v. 
j 
M/S. DAMINI CONSTRUCTION 
FEBRUARY 28, 2007 
B 
(A.K. MA THUR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-ss. 34 & 33: 
Arbitral award-Power of arbitrator to review the award-Appellant 
}-
c requested arbitrator in writing to review award and also sought certain 
clarifications-Request sent after expiry of period of limitation prescribed ul 
s. 34 for setting aside of award-Arbitrator replied that he had no jurisdiction 
for review-Held: When award was passed, only option with Appellant was 
either to move an application under s.34 within three months or within 
D extended period of another 30 days-Question of review was totally 
misconceived as there is no such provision in the Act for review of award by 
the arbitrator-Also clarifications sought not contemplated under s.33-1n 
this background, reply sent by arbitrator does not entitle appellant a fresh 
cause of action so as to file an application under s.34(3) by taking the , 
E 
starting point of limitation from the date of reply given by the arbitrator-
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5. 
Respondent raised bill with regard to the contract it had entered into 
with the Public Works Department in State of Andhra Pradesh for executing 
work of construction of road bridges. But it was refused payment. The refusal 
F 
gave rise to disputes which were referred to arbitration. Arbitrator passed 
an interim award on 12-10-2003. Appellant sent a letter to the arbitrator on 
02-04-2004 seeking review of the award. On 10-4-2004, the arbitrator by his 
letter stated that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the request for review of 
.... ~ 
the award and also informed that the award dated 12-10-2003 was in fact a 
final award pertaining to the issues involved. On 21-06-2004, Respondent-
G petitioner filed an application for execution of the interim award dated 12-10-
2003. Thereafter on 6-8-2004, Appellant filed application under s.34 of the 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 12-
10-2003 together with an application under s.S of the Limitation Act read 
with s.34(3) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for 
H 
416 
STA TE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH 1·. DAMINI CONSTRUCTION 
417 
~ 
setting aside the award. Delay was condoned by the Trial Court. That order A 
" 
~ 
was set aside by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was submitted by the appellant that the cause 
of action arose to the appellant on 10.4.2004 when the letter was received 
from the arbitrator and, hence, the appellant was entitled to count the period 
of limitation from the date of receipt of such letter from the arbitrator and if B 
the limitation was to start from 10.4.2004 then the appellant has a right to 
move an application for setting aside of the award under s.34 of the Act within 
three months and the extended period of one month and the appellant having 
filed the application on 6.8.2004, it was within time. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD: I.I. The submission of the appellant is totally misconceived and 
it cannot be accepted. A perusal of the interim award passed by the arbitrator 
clearly shows that it was final to the extent of the claims decided therein. 
This interim award did not mince any word and determined the amount after 
discussing the claims in detail and finally calculated the amount under each D 
of the claims. Therefore, there was no confusion in this award. [Para 6] 
[421-C, F] 
,. 
1.2. It was absolutely thoughtlessness on the part of the appellant to 
> 
have written a letter after six months i.e. on 2.4.2004 seeking review of the 
interim award. Firstly, the letter had been designed not strictly under s.33 of E 
the Act because under that Section a party can seek certain correction in 
computation of errors, or clerical or typographical errors or any other errors 
of a similar nature occurring in the award with notice to the other party or if 
agreed between the parties, a party may request the arbitral tribunal to give 
an interpretation ofa specific point or part of the award. This application which F 
was moved by the appellant does not come within any of the criteria falling 
under s.33(1) of the Act. It was designed as ifthe appellant was seeking review 
--·~ 
of the award. Since the Tribunal had no power of review on merit, therefore, 
the application moved by the appellant was wholly misconceived. Secondly, it 
was prayed whether the p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.